Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Creation of Operations Manual

So noted!



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Engineering Fellow 
BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS) 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
Cell: +1 973.229.9520 

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Creation of
Operations Manual

Here are items that were in yellow on the comment resolution that I
would like to discuss:
*********** 136 ***************
There is a discrepancy between the P&P and the OM because the P&P says
that all replies to inquiries shall be made through the chair (9.2
External communication) and 8.1.2 has a process whereby WGs and TAGs can
communicate with external standards bodies. Note that this discrepancy
also applies to 8.2 Communication with Government Bodies.
9.2 is text in the baseline P&P that can be modified.
Matt's proposed resolution was to remove the discrepancy by removing the
text that allows communication between a WG/TAG and an external body. I
would prefer that the issue be resolved in the other direction by
changing 9.2. One way this could be done is to say in 9.2 that
communication for coordination with other standards bodies and with
government bodies should be handled as described in our OM. 
Many of the inquiries that our WGs get are extremely detailed. I believe
that the inquiries and replies should be forwarded to the EC so we can
see what is going on and raise concerns if necessary but I also don't
think that we should need to review and approve every minor liaison
letter and it is better for minor communications to go out as
communication from the WG involved rather than from all of 802.
*********** 144 **************
Based on our recent reflector discussion about posting PARs, I suggested
that a statement be added to the OM procedure for PARs  saying that
proposed PARs should be posted on where they are visible to
participants and that the email sent to the EC should have the links.
Matt's reply is that PARs are "owned" by the SA and not us and he thinks
they are posted under NesCom and MyBallot.
I believe that is incorrect both in principle and in practice:
Before we vote to submit the PAR, in principle it is owned by us
Active PARs are visible in MyProject, but PARs that haven't been
submitted to NesCom yet are only visible to those who have the
confirmation code. Since that code allows modifying them, we don't
distribute it. Since our Procedure for PARs says EC approval is required
before sending them outside of LMSC, they shouldn't be submitted to
NesCom before we vote on them.
Note that this last bit should possibly be changed. Despite what it says
under 11.2 LMSC Approval, we often do presubmit when the submittal
deadline of NesCom falls before a plenary and that NesCom meeting falls
after a plenary and then pull the PAR from the agenda if 802 EC doesn't
approve the PAR. In any case, I didn't see a place where the submitted
PARs were visible in MyProject or the NesCom page.
********* 204 ********* 
I don't think we need to discuss this one since it is not modifyable
text, but I think we should ask audcom to take a look at the issue. The
SASB-OM and P&P say that the sponsor may delegate handling
interpretations. I think the audcom P&P shouldn't assume that
appointment by the sponsor chair is the right mechanism for all sponsors
- the baseline should allow us to specify another mechanism such as
delegation to the WGs which is what we do in practice.
******** 221 *********
Since our Recording Secretary doesn't schedule the meetings, we should
remove scheduling meetings part of the bullet.
******** 226 *********
I didn't supply the text because I'm not sure what is the best
description - I thought the treasurer might want some input.
Something like:
Supervise the operation of any subgroup treasuries and their bank
accounts to assure compliance with SA financial policies.
********* 252 and 253 *********
Sorry for not crafting text for 252. What John Lemon produced is about
right for the first sentence, but the second sentence should say '...
may deactivate a WG if it has no active PARs and has not produced
standards or recommended practices." 
Presumably if a group has open PARs it shouldn't be deactivated until
those PARs are withdrawn.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.